The Greatest General in History

[Ad_Captandum]

Who was the greatest general in history? We have a list spanning the ages, from the dawn of history to the Second World War.

Who is your choice, and why?

Edit: To my eternal shame, I've made a typo in Napoleon Bonaparte's name. Is there any way to edit the poll?

 

[Alfred]

There are three main levels of command with which we can judge a general’s relative abilities. Grand Strategy, Strategy, and Operations. These have remained constant throughout history and technological advances so it is possible to make a determination based on these. These are my initial musings on each of the following categories:

Grand Strategy is the highest level of waging war; it includes influencing national policy, and objectives:

Napoleon is the first that comes to mind here, amassing and coordinating Le Grande Armiee (or however it was spelt, damn Frenchy!) must have been a logistical nightmare.

I'd be tempted to put Charles Martel in for a candidacy here too, because in a time of crisis (dark ages Europe was always in crisis) he took the reigns and established a stable empire within an area of the world that was, as far as I can see, in utter turmoil. The man had a plan.

Strategy is the planning of operations and objectives for a campaign and includes elements like logistical planning:

Hannibal Barca. How the hell do you manage to get Elephants through the Alps? Good grief. Also with regards to his ten year busman's holiday to Italy, that must have involved some pretty clever footwork.

I think an honourable mention should go to Basil, the Byzantine Emperor who mounted 17,000 men on donkeys to go and foil a Turkish siege.

Operations is the actual movement of troops during a campaign in order to achieve an objective set at a higher level:

Probably Alexander, as for a lot of his campaigns he was going into the unknown. You can't prepare for the unknown, so spur-of-the-moment strategies must have been his speciality.

That said, I think Alexander probably had it quite easy, all things said and done (the Greeks had superior armies, without a doubt IMO) and so trashing the Persians might not have been as difficult as one might think.

I would rather have fought 250,000 cloth-armour-wearing Persians than 25,000 Roman legionaries.

 

[NoC_T]

Who was the greatest general in history? We have a list spanning the ages, from the dawn of history to the Second World War.

Who is your choice, and why?

Edit: To my eternal shame, I've made a typo in Napoleon Bonaparte's name. Is there any way to edit the poll?

Ace thread, dude. I chose not to vote, as they were all remarkable men within the ambit of their own milieu.

 

[DaveFagan]

Who was the greatest general in history? We have a list spanning the ages, from the dawn of history to the Second World War.

Who is your choice, and why?

Edit: To my eternal shame, I've made a typo in Napoleon Bonaparte's name. Is there any way to edit the poll?

I chose Genghis Khan. Conquered a huge geographical area. Overcame topographical obstacles. It had to be tremendous leadership and a troop with high morale.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

Who was the greatest general in history? We have a list spanning the ages, from the dawn of history to the Second World War.

Who is your choice, and why?

Edit: To my eternal shame, I've made a typo in Napoleon Bonaparte's name. Is there any way to edit the poll?

My money is on Napoleon. The way he perfectly manipulated his enemy, was able to predict every moment of the Battle of Austerwitz is something no one to my knowledge has been able to replicate.

 

[DVSentinel]

You left off George S. Patton. It would be a toss up between him and Sun Tsu (Assuming he was indeed a real person)

 

[cpwill]

You left off George S. Patton. It would be a toss up between him and Sun Tsu (Assuming he was indeed a real person)

As I understand the process of compilation, he was an amalgamation from the period before the Han, when Legalism held sway.


That being said, the answer is: General Winter.

 

[humbolt]

I can't be certain. It could be General Electric, General Elevator, or General Quarters. Generally speaking, of course.

 

[DVSentinel]

As I understand the process of compilation, he was an amalgamation from the period before the Han, when Legalism held sway.


That being said, the answer is: General Winter.

I think Patton would of won against General Winter had he been allowed to engage. Patton primarily stands out because unlike others mentioned, he faced a three dimensional battlefield and also had to fight a technologically superior force. Not to diminish Eisenhower, who was probably a superior strategist, or Bradley, who was also a great tactician and leader but just not as brilliant as Patton.

Leonidas of Sparta was obviously a very good general in-order to get the performance from his troops that he did, however, the OP seems to want to bring scope into play in several of his choices. Although Sun Tsu theoretically was of very limited scope his influence in later years broadens him.

Napoleon, although an innovator, was actually not that good of a general as he made poor decisions and over extended himself leading to his eventual defeat. Further, he proved himself to be a rather poor tactician at Leipzig and Waterloo.

 

[spud_meister]

Genghis Kahn, not only did he and his kids conquer a ****load, he started from the bottom, as a tribal outcast, and worked his way up.

 

[TurtleDude]

Shaka Zulu. A brilliant strategist, he realized the shortcomings of Native warfare (mainly ineffective dispersed archery and throwing spears) and copied the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legions. He had his soldiers discard the clumsy sandals that slowed running and made his warriors toughen their feet which lead to much more mobility. He adopted short stabbing spears (much like the Roman short sword) and shields and the enveloping movement of the greek phalanx. While initially outnumbered he destroyed all in his way (he was smart enough not to engage the white settlers-something his successors learned painfully at Blood River as the Boers engineered a brutal payback for the treacherous murder of their leader and his family Piet Retief.

Pretorious's Boers suffered several wounded-the much larger Zulu forces lost thousands so Pretorios is also in the running for a top slot in history's ranking of Generals

But Shaka managed much more. He displaced 25% of all sub saharan native populations with his conquest. Given what he had to work with, his brilliance is in rare company

 

[cpwill]

Genghis Kahn, not only did he and his kids conquer a ****load, he started from the bottom, as a tribal outcast, and worked his way up.

Pshaw. Ender Wiggen did that before he hit puberty. What else ya got?

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Pshaw. Ender Wiggen did that before he hit puberty. What else ya got?

Peter Wiggen conquered the world by the Internet. Beat that

 

[cpwill]

Peter Wiggen conquered the world by the Internet. Beat that

No he didn't. Gah. Read a book, willyah?

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

No he didn't. Gah. Read a book, willyah?

I read the entire series. The most regretted literary adventure aside from attempting to read Das Kapital

 

[DVSentinel]

I chose Genghis Khan. Conquered a huge geographical area. Overcame topographical obstacles. It had to be tremendous leadership and a troop with high morale.

Genghis khan, like William T. Sherman was a butcher and terrorist, not a general. His success was as much due to the terror he created by his methodologies and due to any real leadership. Real generals don't rely upon terror from the butcher of civilians and children, the outthink and out-perform other professional military generals.

 

[cpwill]

I read the entire series

then you oughta know better - he had Bean do his fighting

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Who was the greatest general in history? We have a list spanning the ages, from the dawn of history to the Second World War.

Who is your choice, and why?

Edit: To my eternal shame, I've made a typo in Napoleon Bonaparte's name. Is there any way to edit the poll?

I'd have to go with Genghis Khan. If anyone wants to hear why, here's a link to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History archive. Listen to the "Wrath of the Khans" series - it's by turns enlightening...and chilling. His generalship encompassed not only battlefield genius, but infrastructure building and maintenance, highly effective intelligence systems, extensive success in getting his enemies to join him, one of the first truly merit-based advancement systems, and seriously draconian ways of maintaining unit discipline.

On a side note, if we were to talk admirals, then I'd have to go with Admiral Horatio Nelson.

 

[Mosby]

 

[TurtleDude]

View attachment 67159095

He made the mistake of trying to invade the north rather than keep the North out

major fail

 

[chromium]

^yeah Pickett's charge was the act of a master strategist

 

[Mosby]

He made the mistake of trying to invade the north rather than keep the North out

major fail

General Lee believed that the Lord was on the South's side, and that the South could not lose. He was a very religious man and loved the Lord with all his heart. I have read much about him and admire him very much. His reputation as a Commanding General, husband, father, and Christian gentleman remains intact, regardless of what some internet guy thinks 150 years later.

 

[TurtleDude]

General Lee believed that the Lord was on the South's side, and that the South could not lose. He was a very religious man and loved the Lord with all his heart. I have read much about him and admire him very much. His reputation as a Commanding General, husband, father, and Christian gentleman remains intact, regardless of what some internet guy thinks 150 years later.

yeah but he lost

if he would have merely fought a repelling campaign against the north, chances were the north would have come to terms with the south leaving. Invading the North caused massive increases in volunteers and the North's industrial might doomed the south from the beginning.

 

[Gathomas88]

Judging by the sheer amount of land he was able to conquer, the diverse variety of different tactics he was able to master, and the fact that he was never actually defeated, I think the title has to go to the Great Khan here.

I'm not sure how he would measure up in terms of sheer strategic skill and ability, however.

 

[Mosby]

yeah but he lost

if he would have merely fought a repelling campaign against the north, chances were the north would have come to terms with the south leaving. Invading the North caused massive increases in volunteers and the North's industrial might doomed the south from the beginning.

It would be easy for us to Monday morning quarterback 150 years later. But I will concede, looking back, that mistakes were made. I have an ancestor under General Garnett who was badly wounded in Pickett's Charge. His wounds hindered him through his 90's. But he LOVED General Lee regardless - the many reasons that we love General Lee outweigh any "mistakes". General Lee felt horribly about Gettysburg - it haunted him the rest of his life. However, the Confederate Soldier LOVED General Lee and forgave him and supported him throughout the war and throughout his life.

This is an opinion poll on who the Greatest General in History is and my opinion has not and will not change. Allow me my opinion, sir, and I shall allow you yours.